Home / Restructuring & Insolvency / Insolvency litigation / Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder

Legal News

A tangled web unwoven (Shankland v McKeand)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 12 April 2024

Published by a LexisNexis Restructuring & Insolvency expert

Table of contents

What are the practical implications of this case?
What was the background?
What did the court decide?
Case details

Article summary

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The respondent, an independent financial adviser, had created a portfolio of companies to support his various business interests. One of these companies was Lion House Portfolio Ltd (Lion House) which entered liquidation. The liquidators brought and succeeded in their claims in misfeasance in relation to various payments and transfers made to the respondent and his portfolio companies. The claim in relation to shares alleged to be owned by Lion House failed because the court concluded the shares had, in fact, been beneficially owned by the respondent. Written by Damian Murphy, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986A fraudulent trading claim arises under two separate statutory routes: •it is a criminal offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006•a civil remedy arises under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986The purpose of a preference claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is to prevent a situation where a creditor is given priority in relation to past indebtedness of a company at the expense of other creditors, preventing a

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the liquidators refuse to settle proceedings (drop hands) without payment of their costs to date, is there any authority for getting paid costs as an expense of the liquidation or attaching personal liability